Summary:
In considering the immoralist’s counterpoint to his own view that justice is valuable in and of itself, Plato presents the argument that justice is valuable – and performed by an individual – only if it benefits the individual.
Most interesting I thought was Plato’s distinguishing between the infliction and affliction of injustice to explain how laws are formed. To inflict injustice is to benefit oneself while to be afflicted by injustice is to suffer. Plato claims that the suffering received from the affliction of injustice outweighs the benefit gained from the infliction of injustice. For those people who do not have the power to avoid the affliction of injustice, it is therefore in their best overall interests to come to an agreement amongst themselves to not inflict injustice. Thus, they form laws that deter the infliction of injustice. Plato notes that this process is the “origin and essence of justice.” Justice then is not something valuable in and of itself, but exists only because most people are “too weak to do injustice with impunity”. For those who can do injustice with impunity, they are best able to maximise satisfaction of their desires.
Thus, most of us perform justly – though not because justice is inherently good. We perform justly because we are too weak to perform unjustly. We are too powerless to get away with the riches of injustice.
Analysis 